IMPORTANT: JREF Forums is now the International Skeptics Forum. If you are a past member of the JREF Forums you must agree to the new terms and conditions to post, send PMs, or continue to use the forum as a member. You can view them here, or you will be presented with them when you try to make a post or PM or similar.

Your private information was removed in transferring to the new forum. If you'd like to import it please see the instructions in this thread to approve transfer.
If you are having problems accessing the Forum you can contact Darat at isforum@internationalskeptics.com, please include your username and forum email address in any email.
NOTE:** TAPATALK access is currently disabled **. This is just while we work out how to ensure people have to agree to the T&Cs before posting here via Tapatalk

Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Some people have the right to say stupid things that prove they are ignorant.
Some people have the right to believe myths are true.
Some people have the right to buy and hold onto guns that are later used to kill their families.

__________________All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

You think the Constitution should be changed to restrict guns? I don't think so. The reason is because the Constitution says we can have guns.

Anyway, the reasons the 2nd amendment has not been repealed are as follows:

1. It sets an extremely bad precedent that anything in the Bill of Rights is up for amending. I mean, I could argue that the 5th Amendment is out of date (Double Jeopardy, especially after the OJ case) or that the 4th (mandating warrants) does not allow the US to deal with crime more effectively.
2. Frankly, Gun crime (along with violent crime as a whole) has decreased significantly in the past 15 years (thanks to the removal of lead from the environment). If the second amendment wasn't repealed during the 80s/90s or in the 20s/30s (when gun crime was at its peak), why repeal it now?

Some people have the right to say stupid things that prove they are ignorant.
Some people have the right to believe myths are true.
Some people have the right to buy and hold onto guns that are later used to kill their families.

Some people have the right to say stupid things that prove they are ignorant.
Some people have the right to believe myths are true.
Some people have the right to buy and drive cars that are later used to kill families.

The Bill of Rights recognized in the 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court has ruled in Heller that an individual citizen of the republic not in the prohibited class has a right to own a firearm in common use for self defense, period

Well, maybe not "period", as that "period" implies that somehow such a right could not be much more severely limited than it is now.

In Heller, and affirmed by McDonald, the court ruled that an absolute ban on handguns violated the second amendment. They didn't rule whether a much more selective ban, or increased regulations of who could own handguns, would be constitutional.

__________________Dave

"Mead is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -very similar to something said by Ben Franklin

Kids choke on all kinds of things and we develop the Heimlich maneuver to clear their airway.

I'm sure there is a gun that could do a much better job.

__________________I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars.
Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe
Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

Some people have the right to say stupid things that prove they are ignorant.
Some people have the right to believe myths are true.
Some people have the right to buy and drive cars that are later used to kill families.

Some people have the right to say stupid things that prove they are ignorant.
Some people have the right to believe myths are true.
Some people have the right to buy and hold onto guns that are later used to kill their families.

Some people have the right to say stupid things that prove they are ignorant.
Some people have the right to believe myths are true.
Some people have the right to buy and drive cars that are later used to kill families.

Exactly why the NRA doesn't want IQ or other measures of intelligence used as a means test for guns.

__________________I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars.
Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe
Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

__________________I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars.
Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe
Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

Anyway, the reasons the 2nd amendment has not been repealed are as follows:

1. It sets an extremely bad precedent that anything in the Bill of Rights is up for amending. I mean, I could argue that the 5th Amendment is out of date (Double Jeopardy, especially after the OJ case) or that the 4th (mandating warrants) does not allow the US to deal with crime more effectively.
2. Frankly, Gun crime (along with violent crime as a whole) has decreased significantly in the past 15 years (thanks to the removal of lead from the environment). If the second amendment wasn't repealed during the 80s/90s or in the 20s/30s (when gun crime was at its peak), why repeal it now?

The second amendment was never designed to promote or inhibit gun violence which is part of the problem. Emergent from gun ownership is gun violence however attempts to address gun violence cannot include arms restriction even though arms restriction reduces gun violence. The Bill of Rights serves specific purposes (however they're sometimes vague which is why bearing arms is independent from "for the purposes of maintaining a well regulated militia").

__________________"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

I know that. If the only defense to owning a gun is that it's your right by the Constitution and that prevents the discussion on the obvious problem of guns and the insane amount of violence that comes from them then we're going to be stuck with the same problem.

Man, I know some old time cops that would be right with you...about 5th Amendment rights.

I know some folks that would also toss the 1st Amendment.

All using your exact logic - "the result isn't what it should be, so **** the BoR."

I'll take the Constitution, the BoR and the rule of law over the situationally expedient denial of rights.

Well, maybe not "period", as that "period" implies that somehow such a right could not be much more severely limited than it is now.

In Heller, and affirmed by McDonald, the court ruled that an absolute ban on handguns violated the second amendment. They didn't rule whether a much more selective ban, or increased regulations of who could own handguns, would be constitutional.

Heller wasn'tn soley about handguns - the exact term that was used was firearms "in common use" as the base line, not specifying type or method of operation (non-NFA weapons and devices).

Heller did state that there could be limits on a range of activites involved with firearms, such as the carrying of a firearm, restrictions on carrying in sensitive places, the prohibited class of individuals, etc, and I'd assert that background checks and licenses to carry would pass muster under the current interpretation, but a bunch of what has been proposed on this forum and elsewhere wouldn't fly anywhere post Heller and McDonald.

Man, I know some old time cops that would be right with you...about 5th Amendment rights.

I know some folks that would also toss the 1st Amendment.

All using your exact logic - "the result isn't what it should be, so **** the BoR."

I'll take the Constitution, the BoR and the rule of law over the situationally expedient denial of rights.

Hey I'd love to be able to square the right to own a gun with the ability to effectively reduce gun violence. A lot of countries have been able to do it. The problem is that the Second Amendment has no discrimination of arms and later laws like Heller and McDonald have effectively made neither state nor federal lawmakers able to do that. The second amendment's purpose was never designed with the proper foresight to deter the violence from said arms and sadly also blocks any attempts to do so. We can't even take a better model of gun control from other countries and apply it because the second amendment won't allow it EVEN THOUGH it was never designed to block it either.

I know you like your rights, but this one really sucks dude. You have to know that. Somewhere in the back of your mind you have to actually know this.

__________________"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

Which is a good argument for doing away with laws and just letting the government and its agents arrest and convict you based on what 'seems' right.

Lots of people would agree, and I wonder how many folks in favor of flushing the Second away would react when someone proposed eliminating the Fifth on the basis that it restricts LE in apprehending and convicting bad actors.

At one point in time, I'm sure that many people would have applauded the arrest and convistion of rockers that made statements in their music contrary to the beliefs of the listener - see: Pussy Riot. I know guys who asserted that America started going down the tubes when The Beatles came ashore.

Well, maybe not "period", as that "period" implies that somehow such a right could not be much more severely limited than it is now.

In Heller, and affirmed by McDonald, the court ruled that an absolute ban on handguns violated the second amendment. They didn't rule whether a much more selective ban, or increased regulations of who could own handguns, would be constitutional.

In fact, they could mandate that only the weapon available at the time of the constitution writing are allowed. Flintlock and similar rifle and gun.

In fact, they could mandate that only the weapon available at the time of the constitution writing are allowed. Flintlock and similar rifle and gun.

fair is fair.

That would not have passed muster with the court that wrote Heller, or any court following that precedent.

On the other hand, the assault weapon ban of 1994 would easily pass, as would everything I've seen proposed by serious politicians lately.

Some people on the forums might have made proposals that wouldn't pass (like only allowing flintlocks), but you could restrict firearms pretty significantly and still be well within the limits of Heller.

The most important thing that Heller did was to establish that the 2nd amendment really did apply to individuals, and not merely to individuals who were performing some sort of military service at the time. Heller firmly established that people have a right to own guns for the purpose of defending themselves. The blanket ban on handguns went too far in restricting that right, according to the court majority.

__________________Dave

"Mead is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -very similar to something said by Ben Franklin

Lots of people would agree, and I wonder how many folks in favor of flushing the Second away would react when someone proposed eliminating the Fifth on the basis that it restricts LE in apprehending and convicting bad actors.

At one point in time, I'm sure that many people would have applauded the arrest and convistion of rockers that made statements in their music contrary to the beliefs of the listener - see: Pussy Riot. I know guys who asserted that America started going down the tubes when The Beatles came ashore.

Ah the slippery slope argument meant to drive fear into the discussion and pretty much nuke any argument, it's cute. You're going to have to understand that your second amendment rights and gun violence are fatally related. How would you reduce gun violence without restrictions to arms? Rather than keep letting you sit in your echo chamber ignoring a problem, can you actually participate in discussion? You're a gun owner ( I assume but I may be wrong) and probably a trustworthy one. How would you make sure everyone like you can be trusted to own and carry a firearm and at the same time reduce gun violence and fatalities. Guns will kill far easier and with far less risk to the shooter than almost all other armaments and the ones that are less riskier than that are much harder to access (for the obvious of reasons; reasons which logic should extend to guns but oooooh that second amendment).

And that's just for killing people. I don't even know the numbers on gun use in robberies and assaults (basically guns used but didn't kill) and rape etc etc. Because again guns make it far less risky to the user. They really REALLY don't belong in anyone's hands ever (personal opinion but I think they should all be melted down into something useful like a pair of pliers or something). If all you have to say to the issue of gun violence is "second amendment biatch!" then you would have to address gun violence in a way that doesn't infringe on the second amendment. What have you got champ? Or at least let me try to allow you a rubric by which to answer (you are absolutely allowed and encouraged to add something else but please for the love of God just participate in the discussion rather than cross your arms blaring bumper sticker quotes):

How could state and federal policy intervene to prevent accidental gun deaths/injury? I would like to think that requirements for all gun registration per individual gun owner and also a registered gun safe that bolts to the floor and is inspected twice a year by an agency (either state or federal) and no purchase of a gun can be made until it's verified that the owner is registered and has a registered safe. I would think that this may reinforce a habit of keeping a gun in the safe. That's my idea how would you address the original question?

How can state and federal policy intervene to prevent intentional death/injury by a firearm? This will absolutely go back to violence because guns are just the tool of a violent actor we can all agree. I personally think guns make it easier and more preferable to committing violence. An actor will benefit more from gun use than from most all other weapons.

How can state and federal policy ensure that gun owners have their skin in this game. Guns are insanely dangerous and allowing people to have them on the honors system should also mean that any gun owner needs to make sure that they themselves minimize the dangers from them. If a gun owner's gun is stolen how responsible should they be to that gun? If a gun owner lives in a house with a criminal can that gun owner still own his personal gun even though he's in an environment WITH a criminal? If that gun owner ignores that who can pick up his or her slack?

How can state and federal policy ensure that gun sellers (private owners and businesses) communicate their sales and buyers so that tracking can be effective? The Tiarht amendment is a POS that breaks down any communication infrastructure possible and also relaxes responsibilities of a gun seller. I'm sure we are all in agreement that anyone with a criminal record should not own a gun (even though they too may require self protection because their environment probably is riskier) so every seller needs to perform a background check. But the Tiarht amendment prevents agencies from getting retailers to actually check and report their inventory. Also what about gun show loopholes?An easter egg. If you're seeing this that means you're quoting this whole block and hopefully actually addressing this whole block. I hope you do. I hope you don't cherry pick a bit and hit-and-run

__________________"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

That would not have passed muster with the court that wrote Heller, or any court following that precedent.

On the other hand, the assault weapon ban of 1994 would easily pass, as would everything I've seen proposed by serious politicians lately.

Some people on the forums might have made proposals that wouldn't pass (like only allowing flintlocks), but you could restrict firearms pretty significantly and still be well within the limits of Heller.

The most important thing that Heller did was to establish that the 2nd amendment really did apply to individuals, and not merely to individuals who were performing some sort of military service at the time. Heller firmly established that people have a right to own guns for the purpose of defending themselves. The blanket ban on handguns went too far in restricting that right, according to the court majority.

Sounds to me you are well screwed and at an dead end. You better hope that murder rate drop further because there seems to be no constitutional and lawful solution whatsoever.

Drat, then maybe drug all water supply with diazepam ? If you can#t touch gun , try to get the problem at the source : the people .

Well addressing social determinants of violence would actually be an effective method you know. It may not require brainwashing or drugging but eliminating/reducing whatever environmental factors that amplify violence.

But I have no idea how to actually do that. The crazies that make the news are probably in the minority of gun violence (their body count may be higher but I would have to imagine that gun violence trends with all other violence types). How do you prevent someone from acting on violent impulses especially when we have guns which are so damned effective at killing.

__________________"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

Ah the slippery slope argument meant to drive fear into the discussion and pretty much nuke any argument, it's cute. You're going to have to understand that your second amendment rights and gun violence are fatally related. How would you reduce gun violence without restrictions to arms? Rather than keep letting you sit in your echo chamber ignoring a problem, can you actually participate in discussion? You're a gun owner ( I assume but I may be wrong) and probably a trustworthy one. How would you make sure everyone like you can be trusted to own and carry a firearm and at the same time reduce gun violence and fatalities. Guns will kill far easier and with far less risk to the shooter than almost all other armaments and the ones that are less riskier than that are much harder to access (for the obvious of reasons; reasons which logic should extend to guns but oooooh that second amendment).

And that's just for killing people. I don't even know the numbers on gun use in robberies and assaults (basically guns used but didn't kill) and rape etc etc. Because again guns make it far less risky to the user. They really REALLY don't belong in anyone's hands ever (personal opinion but I think they should all be melted down into something useful like a pair of pliers or something). If all you have to say to the issue of gun violence is "second amendment biatch!" then you would have to address gun violence in a way that doesn't infringe on the second amendment. What have you got champ? Or at least let me try to allow you a rubric by which to answer (you are absolutely allowed and encouraged to add something else but please for the love of God just participate in the discussion rather than cross your arms blaring bumper sticker quotes):

How could state and federal policy intervene to prevent accidental gun deaths/injury? I would like to think that requirements for all gun registration per individual gun owner and also a registered gun safe that bolts to the floor and is inspected twice a year by an agency (either state or federal) and no purchase of a gun can be made until it's verified that the owner is registered and has a registered safe. I would think that this may reinforce a habit of keeping a gun in the safe. That's my idea how would you address the original question?

How can state and federal policy intervene to prevent intentional death/injury by a firearm? This will absolutely go back to violence because guns are just the tool of a violent actor we can all agree. I personally think guns make it easier and more preferable to committing violence. An actor will benefit more from gun use than from most all other weapons.

How can state and federal policy ensure that gun owners have their skin in this game. Guns are insanely dangerous and allowing people to have them on the honors system should also mean that any gun owner needs to make sure that they themselves minimize the dangers from them. If a gun owner's gun is stolen how responsible should they be to that gun? If a gun owner lives in a house with a criminal can that gun owner still own his personal gun even though he's in an environment WITH a criminal? If that gun owner ignores that who can pick up his or her slack?

How can state and federal policy ensure that gun sellers (private owners and businesses) communicate their sales and buyers so that tracking can be effective? The Tiarht amendment is a POS that breaks down any communication infrastructure possible and also relaxes responsibilities of a gun seller. I'm sure we are all in agreement that anyone with a criminal record should not own a gun (even though they too may require self protection because their environment probably is riskier) so every seller needs to perform a background check. But the Tiarht amendment prevents agencies from getting retailers to actually check and report their inventory. Also what about gun show loopholes?An easter egg. If you're seeing this that means you're quoting this whole block and hopefully actually addressing this whole block. I hope you do. I hope you don't cherry pick a bit and hit-and-run

From my pov based on my training and experience, if I were put in charge of revamping firearms laws across the board this is what I'd do - warning - there will something guaranteed to piss off everyone.

Federal control over the states - no no-control states, no over controlled states.

Draconian penalities for criminal or negligent misuse or storage of a firearm, including mandatory minimum sentence enhancments for use of a firearm in crime that would be completely seperate from the sentence in the underlying indictment, with no concurrent sentence and no probation/parole option for the court - Example - possession of a firearm during the course of a robbery that doesn't imvolve injury to the victim, lets say 10 years on the firearm charge, to be served in full before 1 day credit on the robbery charge. You get the idea.

Safe storage accross the board - you can purchase a basic steel key entry storage cabinent that will keep kids or honest people out for under $200.00, Undividual pistol safes can be purchased for $100.00 or less.

Safe storage laws not to be intended to require firearms under lock and key when the owner is in residence - the law would be intended to provide security against theft primarily, not as a restriction prohibiting defensive use.

All firearms sales of title 1 firearms subject to NICS instant background check.

All sales must be conducted through an FFL dealer (allowed to charge a modest fee) and subject to the NICS check as above.

Any theft of a firearm must be reported asap - if the owner is in Italy for a month and comes back to find he/she has been robbed, the first call better be to the local agency.

Shall issue carry permits available in every state, subject to training and live fire range qualification every six months - I'd suggest a minimum classroom component of 32 hrs. (an abbreviated version of Police Officer Standards and Training) and the live fire test should be comprehensive. If you want to carry, you have to measure up.

No magazine capacity restrictions - it's a complete waste of effort.

Any semi-auto version of a design originally manufactured as a selective fire or full auto weapon would be subject to NFA registration in a seperate category, not subject to the $200.00 transfer tax or CLEO sign-off. The purchaser would be subject to the NICS instant check only, but would be required to provide a Certificate of Eligibility with photo and prints - this would be transmitted electroniclly to ATF for inclusion in the NFTR (National Firearms Transfer Record) No additional restrictions in any state on this class of firearm beyond the above stated. As part othe above, ATF would have to get their **** fully together wrt the NFTR - it's a shambles now and has been so for the last 30 or so years, don't get me started.

All of the above must be stored in actual safes or vaults. The buyer can bring in a pic of his setup, and sign a statement under threat of prosecution for perjury and a loss of firearms rights for a minimum of let's say, 5 years if his/her semi-auto military type firearms are stolen from home, and there is evidence that the firearms were not securly stored - if a bad actor can remove the whole safe, and the evidence supports that, no charges against the firearm owner

NFA weapons and devices -

Rescind the section of the Firearms Owners Protection Act prohibiting the manufacture of new machine guns - since 1934, there has been ONE crime known to have been commited with prosecution resulting in conviction from possession of a registered MG, and I'm ashamed to admit that it was a LEO who commited the crime. Registered weapons and devices have not been and are not a problem. With the buy in point where it is, even assuming a drop in price for the lower end of the price scale, anybody willing to go through the whole process and a 5 figure investment isn't likely to act out in any criminal fashion.

Oh yeah, carry permit fees, CoE licenses etc, have to be reasonably related to the costs to administer, no $10,000.00 permit fees...

Sounds to me you are well screwed and at an dead end. You better hope that murder rate drop further because there seems to be no constitutional and lawful solution whatsoever.

Sort of.

If "solution" means getting guns out of the hands of citizens, or even put under lock and key at all times, then no. There's no lawful solution. The constitution grants the right to keep and bear arms. The court, in Heller, interpreted that to mean that an individual has the right to keep firearms available and ready to use for self defense. That right can be limited and regulated, but it can't be ignored.

Handguns are the most commonly used, and most effective, firearms for self defense. They are also the most often used in crimes, and the weapons responsible for most accidental shootings. The Supreme Court has said they can't be banned, and a law requiring trigger locks at all times would be unconstitutional.

__________________Dave

"Mead is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -very similar to something said by Ben Franklin